4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Innsbruck.
5.  On 23 September 1997 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings against his wife, A., before the Innsbruck District Court (Bezirksgericht).
6.  On 16 January 1998 the District Court dismissed A.'s request for legal aid (Verfahrenshilfe).
7.  Hearings were held in the divorce proceedings on 4 and 27 February 1998.
8.  On 6 November 1998 a further hearing was held in the divorce proceedings, in the course of which A.'s lawyer asked the court to adjourn the hearing in order to examine whether a guardian should be appointed to represent A. He considered that there were strong indications that she was mentally ill and lacked full legal capacity. Subsequently, in separate proceedings, a guardian was appointed for her.
9.  A further hearing in the divorce proceedings was fixed for 7 April 1999 and, at the request of A.'s lawyer, postponed until 21 April 1999. During the hearing on 21 April 1999 A.'s guardian stated that he was unable to approve the previous steps taken in the proceedings.
10.  In order to establish how long A. had lacked legal capacity and to what extent this had affected the previous proceedings, the District Court, on 12 May 1999, appointed Dr H., a psychiatrist, as an expert. On 7 October 1999 the expert submitted his report. On 26 November 1999 this report was discussed by the parties before the District Court.
11.  On 7 January 2000 the District Court declared the proceedings void because A. had been incapable of following the proceedings conducted so far. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 3 March 2000 the Regional Court (Landesgericht) dismissed his appeal.
12.  On 11 April 2000 the applicant requested the District Court to serve the petition for divorce on A.'s guardian.
13.  On 7 June 2000 the District Court scheduled a hearing in the fresh proceedings. The hearing was postponed and eventually took place on 20 September 2000. In the course of that hearing the District Court decided what evidence was to be taken. The applicant objected to the appointment of Dr H. as the expert as he considered him biased.
14.  A further hearing was fixed for 21 November 2000 but, at the applicant's request, was adjourned until 1 December 2000.
15.  Meanwhile, in August 2000, A. requested an interim injunction on the payment of maintenance. The District Court stayed these proceedings pending the receipt of expert opinions on A.'s legal capacity. Proceedings were resumed in December 2003. The request was eventually refused at second instance by the Regional Court on 30 April 2004.
16.  A., represented by her guardian, also requested an interim measure to prevent the applicant from selling parts of the real property that he had acquired during their marriage. This request was partly granted by the District Court on 7 December 2000. On 23 March 2001 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by A. against that decision.
17.  Meanwhile, on 9 January 2001, the applicant had requested the District Court to hear witnesses in the main proceedings.
18.  On 27 February 2001 Dr H. commented on the applicant's allegation of bias. On 18 June 2001 the District Court appointed another expert, Dr K., to prepare a report on the legal capacity of A. prior to 1996.
19.  Between 19 April 2002 and 4 November 2002 the expert was repeatedly urged by the District Court to submit his report. Although the AKH hospital, where Dr K. had worked until the summer of 2002, repeatedly told the District Court that the file, together with the expert report, had already been sent to the court, the court had not received it. Enquiries with the post office were also to no avail. Eventually, on 13 November 2002, Dr K.'s report, dated 13 February 2002, arrived at the District Court.
20.  Following comments made by the parties on Dr. K.'s report, the District Court returned the report to him on 15 January 2003, ordering him to supplement it.
21.  On 28 April 2003 the applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings (Fristsetzungantrag) under Section 91 of the Court Act, because the expert had not yet submitted his new report. The applicant also challenged the judge, alleging bias.
22.  On 18 June 2003 the expert, Dr K., submitted his supplemented report attesting that A. had lacked legal capacity at the relevant time. On the same day the District Court dismissed the applicant's challenge concerning the judge.
23.  On 31 July 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting A. from selling, encumbering or mortgaging real estate without his agreement. On 29 August 2003 the District Court dismissed that request.
24.  On 25 September 2003 a further hearing took place in the divorce proceedings. At the applicant's request, the District Court appointed a further expert (Obergutachter), Dr N. from Munich (Germany). The expert report by Dr N., dated 22 January 2004, was served on the applicant on 18 March 2004.
25.  Thereupon the applicant requested that this expert also supplement his report on certain points. Dr N. submitted his supplementary opinion on 16 December 2004.
26.  On 9 August 2004 the case was assigned to a new judge.
27.  On 3 February 2005 a further hearing took place, at which A. requested the hearing of twenty-two witnesses. On 8 August 2005 the applicant requested the hearing of a further ten witnesses. The District Court heard witnesses on 21 April 2005, 14 July 2005, 24 November 2005, 1 December 2005, 15 December 2005, and 4 July 2006. In addition, four witnesses were heard by other courts on letters rogatory between 29 September 2005 and 11 May 2006.
28.  After the parties had already been heard by the District Court on 15 December 2005, the applicant, on 23 March 2006, requested to be heard once more. This hearing took place on 4 July 2006. Thereupon the District Court closed the taking of evidence and decided that the judgment was to be given in writing.
29.  On 12 October 2006 the District Court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and A. on grounds of mutual fault, while holding that A.'s fault prevailed.
30.  On 29 March 2007 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by A. against the divorce judgment.
31.  On 26 June 2007 the Supreme Court rejected an extraordinary appeal (außerordentliche Revision) by A. This decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 31 July 2007.